I hope they keep doing it, maybe it will lead to users understanding that they do not control or own the platform. Unfortunately the odds of that seem slim. Even when users get fed up and move, they tend to just move to another proprietary platform, without consideration or forward thought that maybe it's worthwhile to use support a platform where this cannot happen.
Jeremy Vaught spent 16 years to build @music on Twitter, then X took it away
11–20 of 241 posts
Re: Jeremy Vaught spent 16 years to build @music on Twitter, then X took it away
#12Meh. I think it's fine for them to take it, but they should have left a link up to his new account, and publicly thanked him for keeping an eye on this url for so long. Maybe throw in a 16 year credit towards free service or something. This just seems like a super easy opportunity to make fans. It reminds me of how Microsoft messed up with Mike Rowe soft at first.
Re: Jeremy Vaught spent 16 years to build @music on Twitter, then X took it away
#13As pointed out in the comments he didn't have 11M followers. @music was renamed to @musicfan and @twittermusic was renamed to @music. Both accounts kept all of their followers.
Re: Jeremy Vaught spent 16 years to build @music on Twitter, then X took it away
#14This is why I like how Bluesky handles it, you can use your own domain name. So I simply got @gilli.is, no reason for anyone ever to take that away from me.
Re: Jeremy Vaught spent 16 years to build @music on Twitter, then X took it away
#15I hope they keep doing it, maybe it will lead to users understanding that they do not control or own the platform. Unfortunately the odds of that seem slim. Even when users get fed up and move, they tend to just move to another proprietary platform, without consideration or forward thought that maybe it's worthwhile to use support a platform where this cannot happen.
I hope the bank claim the money back from your account since you don't control or own their "platform".
Re: Jeremy Vaught spent 16 years to build @music on Twitter, then X took it away
#16I hope they keep doing it, maybe it will lead to users understanding that they do not control or own the platform. Unfortunately the odds of that seem slim. Even when users get fed up and move, they tend to just move to another proprietary platform, without consideration or forward thought that maybe it's worthwhile to use support a platform where this cannot happen.
I hope the bank claim the money back from your account since you don't control or own their "platform".
What kind of comparison is this? In most modern countries, banking isn't a platform in the same sense that Twitter is, and despite large issues over the last few decades, they are still regulated by the government(s) they operate in.
Re: Jeremy Vaught spent 16 years to build @music on Twitter, then X took it away
#17Meh. I think it's fine for them to take it, but they should have left a link up to his new account, and publicly thanked him for keeping an eye on this url for so long. Maybe throw in a 16 year credit towards free service or something. This just seems like a super easy opportunity to make fans. It reminds me of how Microsoft messed up with Mike Rowe soft at first.
[flagged]
Re: Jeremy Vaught spent 16 years to build @music on Twitter, then X took it away
#18As pointed out in the comments he didn't have 11M followers. @music was renamed to @musicfan and @twittermusic was renamed to @music. Both accounts kept all of their followers.
So it is completely ok?
Re: Jeremy Vaught spent 16 years to build @music on Twitter, then X took it away
#19i’m not surprised this happened. with @x, it sort-of makes sense. but to randomly pull handles the company wants like this is a bit beyond the pale of fostering a friendly community.
I think the ship has sailed far past "fostering a friendly community."